zentull.......the union of great britain really isnt hard to understand, scotland has been given a measure of devolution thats all, it has the power to introduce various measures for its regions...now while its true that there is indeed a call for full independence, that in the main is only the rallying call of the scottish nationalists ,who interestingly enough want political seperation from england with no interference, but at same time to be free to vote on measures,laws etc debated in the houses of parliament(england).....they really have very little in the wayof an agenda other than "scotland for the scots"....most are in favour of the union continuing.wales of course was never a seperate country,it is of course a principality,the difference some might say is negligible ,but none the more for that ,thats what it is....wales has what is called a national assembly,but of course its more complex than that ,cos its situated in south wales(the assmbly that is)and south and north wales are miles apart in industrial and political policies ,ideas and everything else for that matter..... but again nothing mysterious..northern ireland is recovering quite dramatically from its troubled period....the ballot box has thankfully replaced the bullet and although differences still exist between protestants and catholics,hopefully solutions will be found.
differences there most certainly are between the locations you mention,but in times of trouble ,rest assured the whole nation gels together, even if its only till the troubled times past scotch malt whisky? the finest in the world im told...tho im not a boozer so i cant confirm that....but im noyt against anyone imbibing a dram ....or two

joe ..more opinions...abbreviated
?"mutual protection should be the aim of citizens,not individual self protection.until we are willing to outlaw the very existence or manufacture of civilian handguns we have no right to call ourselves citizens or consider our behaviour even minimally civil" john lennon 1980
every cibvilised society must disarm its citizens against each other .those whi do not trust their own people become predators upon their own people.the sick thing is that haters of fellow americans often think of themselves as patriots

the times union under the header "the terrorists who pack an nra card"
describes the nra as a "shill for terrorists and little better than a terrorist organisation itself" "patriots who arm themselves against americans are enemies of their own patria. the killing will go as long as gun nuts defend the killers right to carry a gun" wash star
oo this is fun ,id love to post some links but dont seem able to and im not fgonna spend half night copying the addresses from my browser cache you see joe throwing statistics doesnt prove anything definitively, it cant....its the conclusions that come from those statistics that matter...if your statistics proved anything then thered be no disputes about gun control would there?......its plain that owning a handgun as a civilian is morally indefensible. not just to me but to anyone with one shred of conscience . show me increases in crime,show me decreases in crime and show me statistics that state the level of gun ownership during those increases and decreases. can u prove definitively that the two are related directly to each other? of course you cant...but if nobody had a gun then its for sure no one would get shot isnt it?thats rather simplistic but plainly its true....so continue hurling ypour pamphlets this waty ,who knows if i got nothing to do i might continue reading them.......think for yourself joe,you gotta read between the lines sometimes praps even use your own common sense and experiences to come to a truthful conclusion.
l

ok joe sent u few links ..sorry it is by email but i dont seem able to post links on here....pay special attention to case for gun control, no doubt youll ignore weverything u dont agree with but.......again sorry for using email to deliver but was that or nothing

The Arizona I knew years ago and the Californiafied Arizona that it has become in small steps, are worlds apart. Phoenix was one of the largest small towns you could imagine years ago. Every where you looked people openly carried firearms. The nostalgic feel of the old west was best represented by the lack of violent crime. There were always gangs, but the influx and influence from California changed them as well. Bad guys always have guns, I like to live where the good guys have better access to them. An individual I would like to say is a friend and acquantince who I can agree to disagree with once told me that it is difficult to have someone understand the parameters of a discussioon such as this when the concepts are so alien to them. Pick up his book "God,Guns and Rock and Roll" it is a fun read through the madness that is Uncle Ted.

Illegal immigration in the parameters of the southern U.S. borders can not be understood by those who do not live there. It is unfortunate that those who believe those borders should be shutdown are more right than wrong.

It is interesting how many celebrity anti gun lobbyists have armed security and belong to gun clubs.

"the welsh are weird regardless" now a welshman might say "that coming from an american is a compliment" i hasten to say MIGHT cos im not welsh and therefore wouldnt know- not for sure anyway. he he he

Don't hold it against TC if he uses the term "Wetback". Unless you have spent much time near the US-Mexican Border, you'll never understand what those who do go through.

I don't use the term myself, but I don't have a problem with others who do.

95% of EVERY outstanding murder warrant in Los Angeles is for an illegal Mexican Immigrant that fled back to Mexico after commiting their crime.

I stopped counting the number of Hospital Emergency Rooms in the SoCal area that have closed down because the illegals use them as free clinics. If you went to an emergency room with a real emergency, you would have to wait 6-7 hours to be seen behind people who don't speak English that are there for bad colds and the like. They don't have medical insurance, so they go to the emergency room because they are required by law to be treated there. And don't give me that crap about free healthcare, because they are not citizens, and are here illegally, they wouldn't qualify for free healthcare even if we had it.

The children of illegal aliens cost the state about $9000 per child in our overcrowded public schools. Currently, 60% of those same children drop out of school (after we have wasted all that time and money on them). Those same drop out kids wind up in gangs and cost our taxpayers more money when they go on welfare and even worse, when they get put in jail.

So, don't think less of somebody who is fed up with everything that is happening because of the illegal immigrants, and our governments' lack of action in doing anything about it.

If the large number and availability of guns in America is the reason for the number of gun homicides, how do you explain the two countries with some of the lowest murders by guns in the world? That would be Israel
and Switzerland.

While you are considering the "facts", you might also consider what the CDC considers a gun homicide. That would be anyone killed with a gun.

Lots of information out there, not so many people willing to educate themselves. "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts".

Gentlemen: When I was a sibling, (obnoxcious brat, similar to Gollum) We all had firearms. I received a S&W .38 and a winchester 30 30 for my 13 th birthday, Most of my aquaintances also had firearms. Even, horrors, had rifle teams in school. Everyone that wished, had firearms. I was able to enter a store, purchase a pistol, and walk out with no problems. Imagine, I could even order firerams and ammunition by postal service, sheesh.

HOWEVER, in conrast to today, there were no drive by shootings, no school shootouts, not too many holdups snce the clerks were also armed, very few firearm accicdents since we were well aware of safety. I could go on and on, but it would soon get tiresome.

SO, why is there such a difference today? Simple, people have tried to be too undestanding and excuse outrageous anti-social behavior as a product of their enviorment, never the fault of the perpatrator. It isn't their fault, but societies. We excuse everythiing in this guise to the point that a cirminal has no reasonable fear of being held accountable for his acts.

If we had gotten out of line, we had our little butts whopped, now parents go to jail to for attempting to teach them how to live in society, or to learn what "NO" means.

I recently read that in Brtland that taking a violent criminal's life in self defense, no matter how it was acheived or under what crcumstances, is
no longer a viable legal defense. What message does that send to the underworld?

Why in the 30's and 40' was a Bobby able to apprehend a violent criminal with no fierarms, many times with just "come along now' , but today they are increasingly being armed? And this wth a much stricter firearm laws, which means less available frearms? Ah, could it be that only the law abiding citizen, not the cirminal, obeys the law? This obviouly means that any law is ineffectve IF it is aimed at the criminal.

In essence what I am tyng to say is that firearms are not the problem, never were, but society is! We are trying to be too understanding, and civilized!

p.s. Why is it that the miitary, which is saturated with lethal weapons of all types, has practically a zero crime or assault rate?

p.p.s Never forget that after Dunkirk Britiland was effectively defenseless snce she had lost her arsenal at Dunkirk. So, American sportsmen donated 1000,s of firearms for her defense. Since Britland had disarmed her citizens they had nothing to fall back on.

realde, i gotta say i agree with what you say, in the most part ,except for your belief that...."society is the problem, firearms never were"......if we agree that society is the problem(for a multitude of reasons), then isnt arming societys citizens compounding the problem? only allow law abiding citizens the right to bear arms? thats fine ,but how do you define "law abiding".....the people who havent got a criminal record? that means very little,maybe theyve never been caught? the clever ones rarely are.if guns are freely available in any society then it is inevitavble that some will find their way into rthe wrong hands,and the more that are available, then the danger increases.
again you repeat this silly nonsense that in britain a citizen cannot ake a violent criminals life in self defense.....the truth is, if its self defense, if its reasonable self defense....then he or she can.
(quote}(
p.p.s Never forget that after Dunkirk Britiland was effectively defenseless snce she had lost her arsenal at Dunkirk. So, American sportsmen donated 1000,s of firearms for her defense. Since Britland had disarmed her citizens they had nothing to fall back on.

(quote)
to begin with britain did not disarm her citizens ,as british citizens were not routinely armed to begin with.and again britain did not lose her whole arsenal at dunkirk either,and was not defenceless under equipped maybe, but its not the same thing at all......its a silly exaggeration.
your main point about society i agree with, but if we accept that society has changed,then surely that dictates that other things(gun control being only one) have to be changed also.
and as a rather outlandish example, if more guns mean by definition a better society, the n maybe iraq should be the most peaceful place on earth?
if society keeps heaping "logs "on the fire, then we cant really be astonished if the "fire" burns brighter and lasts longer .
regards